What field would you actually encourage someone to pursue?

[StatGuy2000]

Wishful dreaming where I live.
_{+ your post made me sad...}

If you don't mind, I would like to ask you the following questions:

(1) Where do you live?

(2) What do you do for a living? (if you're not a student -- if you're a current student, please let me know)

(3) Do you know what fields are in demand in your area?

 

[zoki85]

If you don't mind, I would like to ask you the following questions:

(1) Where do you live?

(2) What do you do for a living? (if you're not a student -- if you're a current student, please let me know)

(3) Do you know what fields are in demand in your area?

(1) Balcan area in Europe
(2) Selling food on a market place (mostly). I'm an electrical engineer (power engineering branch)
(3) Yes I know

 

[WWGD]

Statistics and data science.

I agree. The amount of data generated daily is increasing exponentially. Statistics helps make sense and to organize this data. There are applications all-over the spectrum, and, IMO , it is a pretty interesting area of study, specially if coupled with probability theory.

 

[WWGD]

Well actually if you want the widest choice of post graduate opportunities math is THE degree to do.

It prepares you for a huge number of careers - engineering, I.T, statistician, finance, business, actuary.

Actually Actuary is often ranked as the best job of all:
http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2013/04/22/dust-off-your-math-skills-actuary-is-best-job-of-2013/

But your mah has to be good - those actuary exams are evidently murder. Still the reason its probably so good is because its quite tough there is a limited supply.

Thanks
Bill

Well, there is also the fact that few people stick with the difficulties of a program and do not graduate. Maybe that was part of Brodsky's point.

 

[Rabin D Natha]

Hi everyone. One of the dominant themes that come up in the Career Guidance section of Physics Forums is the relentless pessimism and negativity about the job market in the US. Specifically, that of the employment prospects for physics majors (whether at the undergraduate or at the PhD level), and how a physics degree leaves graduates unprepared for the job market.

Let me turn this theme around. Suppose someone who is either graduating from high school or who is currently a freshman in college/university asked any of you what field/career/job is the most promising, based on current and future prospects. What would be your answer? What field would you encourage someone to pursue, based on two criteria:

(1) Current demand in the US,

and

(2) Future demand in the US, say 5-10 years from now (this is tricky since the economy can change dramatically, but assume for the moment that the American economy that time is not too different from the current economy now)

Also, please note that I'm not just looking at STEM fields, but all fields, in anything, including those that don't necessarily require a university/college education. Anything that is well-paid or promises a decent, middle-class lifestyle or above.

Brain Science! It's where physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, journalism, education, statics, engineering, animation, computer science, arts, and statistics have all come together at this point in time to be the frontier edge of science. EVERYTHING done now will be the basis for our future textbooks.

We need scientists who can share info about how the brain processes light, sound, scent, touch, taste. How fast the brain can do it. What do we sense below and above "normal" thresholds", etc, etc, etc...

The most exciting place to explore right now is the gelatinous mass between our ears!

 

[wukunlin]

I lived in NZ instead of the US so things may be a bit different. I find that out of my friends, the ones that are the best off are not the ones with degrees from a university. It is the tradesmen who are having a good time. Builders, electricians etc. They don't have the massive student loan after they graduate. Instead, they start earning minimum wage from the day they began their apprenticeship. I wouldn't they their job are any less satisfying than STEM jobs, and it doesn't look like they will be obsolete in the near future.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I lived in NZ instead of the US so things may be a bit different. I find that out of my friends, the ones that are the best off are not the ones with degrees from a university. It is the tradesmen who are having a good time. Builders, electricians etc. They don't have the massive student loan after they graduate. Instead, they start earning minimum wage from the day they began their apprenticeship. I wouldn't they their job are any less satisfying than STEM jobs, and it doesn't look like they will be obsolete in the near future.

Would you then tell someone who is graduating from high school to forget about going to university and go straight to apprenticeships for the trades? Do you think therefore that a university degree isn't worth it? (I know in another thread you mentioned you are currently unemployed, with a physics/electrical engineering joint program).

 

[QuantumPion]

Would you then tell someone who is graduating from high school to forget about going to university and go straight to apprenticeships for the trades? Do you think therefore that a university degree isn't worth it? (I know in another thread you mentioned you are currently unemployed, with a physics/electrical engineering joint program).

I would say that unless you have a specific career or goal in mind, that going to university just because "that's what all the successful people supposedly do" is silly. If your goal is just to make money and earn a good living, but you don't have a specific interest in mind, professional trades can easily win out. Especially if you end up using your experience to start your own plumbing/electrical/HVAC company.

 

[analogdesign]

Brain Science! It's where physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, journalism, education, statics, engineering, animation, computer science, arts, and statistics have all come together at this point in time to be the frontier edge of science. EVERYTHING done now will be the basis for our future textbooks.

We need scientists who can share info about how the brain processes light, sound, scent, touch, taste. How fast the brain can do it. What do we sense below and above "normal" thresholds", etc, etc, etc...

The most exciting place to explore right now is the gelatinous mass between our ears!

I would respectfully submit that there is a difference between an important field of study and a good career to suggest to a young person just starting out. While brain science is certainly growing in importance, it is not easy to get a job. This is because so many people are getting trained in it. According to a study, after their first postdoc in neuroscience, only 36% of people got a faculty position. While this is higher than, for instance, physics, it is still quite low in my opinion given the high level of sacrifice required to obtain these credentials. Someone finishing a postdoc is probably in their early to mid 30s, has very little if any savings, and if they do another postdoc it is not guaranteed there will be a place for them when they hit 40. Maybe they will then get a programming job, but perhaps it would have been better in that case to take a programming job 20 years earlier?

It's tough out there.

(PS here's a link to that article I mentioned: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2011_11_18/caredit.a1100128 )

 

[billy_joule]

I lived in NZ instead of the US so things may be a bit different. I find that out of my friends, the ones that are the best off are not the ones with degrees from a university. It is the tradesmen who are having a good time. Builders, electricians etc. They don't have the massive student loan after they graduate. Instead, they start earning minimum wage from the day they began their apprenticeship. I wouldn't they their job are any less satisfying than STEM jobs, and it doesn't look like they will be obsolete in the near future.

Interesting, from what I understand tradespeople in NZ have some of the lowest pay and poorer conditions than many other countries. I'm also from NZ and was an electrician before going to university to do mechanical engineering.
I enjoyed electrical work but the pay and conditions were often pretty bad. Noisy, hot, cold, dangerous, long hours, mundane, weekends, on call, physical - this was industrial work - generally the best paid. I saw some 50 year old guys getting paid the same as the 25 yr olds ($25-30/hr) -crawling under houses, skinning their knuckles, climbing 5m ladders, working weekends, getting electrocuted etc - The same things they'd done since they started. That scared me back to school! Being the boss didn't seem too grand either - Of the 6+ local bosses I knew personally none worked less than 60hrs/wk, sure they made good money but if they weren't workaholics they couldn't compete.

 

[wukunlin]

Would you then tell someone who is graduating from high school to forget about going to university and go straight to apprenticeships for the trades? Do you think therefore that a university degree isn't worth it? (I know in another thread you mentioned you are currently unemployed, with a physics/electrical engineering joint program).

Depends on what they want to do. If they love doing some work where the skills required can be most easily gained from a tertiary institution, then getting a degree is not a bad idea. If we are talking about people who are still scratching their heads about what to do for the rest of their lives, I would recommend they go learn a trade and start earning a living, if they want to learn something else, they'll have the money to afford that when they have figured it out.

As for my own problem, it is mostly to do with my own laziness and stubbornness than my degree. The job markets in most western economies aren't that helpful either.

Interesting, from what I understand tradespeople in NZ have some of the lowest pay and poorer conditions than many other countries. I'm also from NZ and was an electrician before going to university to do mechanical engineering.
I enjoyed electrical work but the pay and conditions were often pretty bad. Noisy, hot, cold, dangerous, long hours, mundane, weekends, on call, physical - this was industrial work - generally the best paid. I saw some 50 year old guys getting paid the same as the 25 yr olds ($25-30/hr) -crawling under houses, skinning their knuckles, climbing 5m ladders, working weekends, getting electrocuted etc - The same things they'd done since they started. That scared me back to school! Being the boss didn't seem too grand either - Of the 6+ local bosses I knew personally none worked less than 60hrs/wk, sure they made good money but if they weren't workaholics they couldn't compete.

Can't argue about the work conditions and occupational hazards. It is just that from the tradesmen I've talk with, after the got out of their apprenticeships, their estimated income add up to comparable amounts with typical entry-level jobs for university graduates, and they don't have a student loan to worry about. I think there can be a lot of discrepancies on how much NZ tradesmen earn depending on the region and customer base.

 

[Jamin2112]

What field would you encourage someone to pursue, based on two criteria:

(1) Current demand in the US,

[...]

What does "demand" mean?

See, the problem is that many college students hear that a particular field is "in-demand" and interpret that as meaning there is large-scale hiring going on, that everyone who wants to get in the field can get an entry-level position. I hear that back in the good ole' days, technology was exploding so fast that one could get a software development job at IBM if one could write a Hello World! program. As far as I can tell, there is no job sector that has that sort of situation today.

 

[StatGuy2000]

What does "demand" mean?

See, the problem is that many college students hear that a particular field is "in-demand" and interpret that as meaning there is large-scale hiring going on, that everyone who wants to get in the field can get an entry-level position. I hear that back in the good ole' days, technology was exploding so fast that one could get a software development job at IBM if one could write a Hello World! program. As far as I can tell, there is no job sector that has that sort of situation today.

When I say "demand", I'm referring to a particular field which are actively hiring people with education/training in that field, and where someone with that set training can obtain employment without undue difficulty (i.e. either being hired upon graduation, or being hired within say, 3-6 months upon graduation). In other words, someone can graduate with an "in-demand" field and not have to be unemployed or "underemployed" (i.e. working in a field that does not use the said skills/education, e.g. working as a janitor). Obviously the situation back in the 1990s with software development was the most extreme example of fields being "in-demand", and you may be right that there is no field with that level of extreme hiring.

But given that the US economy has been growing again over the past year and that the employment situation has improved in the past several months, I would expect that people are being hired. So it's worth asking which fields are more "in-demand" than others.

 

[Jamin2112]

When I say "demand", I'm referring to a particular field which are actively hiring people with education/training in that field, and where someone with that set training can obtain employment without undue difficulty (i.e. either being hired upon graduation, or being hired within say, 3-6 months upon graduation).

Technically, every field is "actively hiring", since there will always be 1 or more persons in the U.S who is retiring or otherwise vacating their position. And, technically, anyone can obtain that position if they're competitive enough. I stress the world competitive. Life is one big competition. There is limited opportunity for meaningful employment, and these days there is an oversupply of college graduates vying for the sorts of entry-level, white-collar jobs that college grads have traditionally been able to get. What you need to do is research to figure out how competitive you need to be in a given field to have a good chance of getting a job within 3-6 months of graduating. For instance, it's well known that you have to be well within the the top 1% of college students to become an M.D., but that you're guaranteed a high-paying job if you make the cut.
.
From experience, I would say that tech jobs are plentiful enough that any college grad can get one; however, most of those jobs are boring, low-paying grunt work (e.g. pushing buttons to launch automated tests, then entering results into a spreadsheet, for $20/hr). If you want to relax on bean bags and develop software, you need to have a high pedigree, have graduated from a competitive CS program and worked an internship at a big company. It's a zero-sum game

 

[StatGuy2000]

When I say "demand", I'm referring to a particular field which are actively hiring people with education/training in that field, and where someone with that set training can obtain employment without undue difficulty (i.e. either being hired upon graduation, or being hired within say, 3-6 months upon graduation). In other words, someone can graduate with an "in-demand" field and not have to be unemployed or "underemployed" (i.e. working in a field that does not use the said skills/education, e.g. working as a janitor). Obviously the situation back in the 1990s with software development was the most extreme example of fields being "in-demand".

Technically, every field is "actively hiring", since there will always be 1 or more persons in the U.S who is retiring or otherwise vacating their position. And, technically, anyone can obtain that position if they're competitive enough. I stress the world competitive. Life is one big competition. There is limited opportunity for meaningful employment, and these days there is an oversupply of college graduates vying for the sorts of entry-level, white-collar jobs that college grads have traditionally been able to get. What you need to do is research to figure out how competitive you need to be in a given field to have a good chance of getting a job within 3-6 months of graduating. For instance, it's well known that you have to be well within the the top 1% of college students to become an M.D., but that you're guaranteed a high-paying job if you make the cut.
.
From experience, I would say that tech jobs are plentiful enough that any college grad can get one; however, most of those jobs are boring, low-paying grunt work (e.g. pushing buttons to launch automated tests, then entering results into a spreadsheet, for $20/hr). If you want to relax on bean bags and develop software, you need to have a high pedigree, have graduated from a competitive CS program and worked an internship at a big company. It's a zero-sum game

But that's precisely the question, isn't it? You are talking about someone being "competitive" enough, and that there is limited opportunity for meaningful employment. The question is, how limited is the opportunity, and I don't just mean for the types of entry-level, white-collar jobs. Obviously, certain opportunities are more limited than others (we've had thread upon thread about the limited opportunities for research positions in physics, for example).

The very reason I'm posing this thread is to know what you and others think would be specific fields you would encourage people to pursue. Those positions where one would have the best chance at finding a well-paying (i.e. > $45000 a year) job within 3-6 months of graduating or immediately upon graduation/end of training.

 

[bohm2]

What field would you encourage someone to pursue, based on two criteria:

(1) Current demand in the US,

and

(2) Future demand in the US, say 5-10 years from now (this is tricky since the economy can change dramatically, but assume for the moment that the American economy that time is not too different from the current economy now)

Also, please note that I'm not just looking at STEM fields, but all fields, in anything, including those that don't necessarily require a university/college education. Anything that is well-paid or promises a decent, middle-class lifestyle or above.

I wouldn't rely on those 2 criteria. You might find something that meets the 2 criteria perfectly and hate your job. Find what interests you first and only then consider those criteria. That's been my experience.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I wouldn't rely on those 2 criteria. You might find something that meets the 2 criteria perfectly and hate your job. Find what interests you first and only then consider those criteria. That's been my experience.

This argument only works if what you are interested just happens to be "marketable" or "employable". But the truth is that for many fields, both in STEM and in non-STEM, interests don't always line up with demand.

What I would argue is to find a marketable field that you won't necessarily love (although it would be great if you do), but something you can either like or even just tolerate/accept, at least in the beginning.

The question would be, what would be those marketable fields currently in the US and in other Western countries. As a summary of this thread so far, I've found the following suggestions:

(1) Medical fields (physicians, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, physiotherapists, medical technicians/technologists, MRI technicians, etc.)

(2) IT/software development

(3) Statistics/data science

(4) The skilled trades (e.g. plumbers, electricians, tool-and-dye makers, crane operators)

(5) Certain engineering fields (e.g. currently, chemical engineering & petroleum engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering to a much lesser extent).

I would welcome further feedback from others here if I missed anything.

 

[Shaun_W]

Anything that self-regulates the amount of people it recruits to keep the supply low in order to keep wages high, like medicine, law and accountancy. If you can get in, it seems like you're guaranteed at least a comfortable living.

 

[analogdesign]

Anything that self-regulates the amount of people it recruits to keep the supply low in order to keep wages high, like medicine, law and accountancy. If you can get in, it seems like you're guaranteed at least a comfortable living.

Except when they decide to cash in instead of self-regulating.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmauree...is-the-worst-career-decision-youll-ever-make/

 

[Shaun_W]

Except when they decide to cash in instead of self-regulating.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmauree...is-the-worst-career-decision-youll-ever-make/

Large amounts of law graduates are not securing jobs as lawyers. This sounds exactly like self-regulation to me - keep the amount of those able to practice low, keep the salaries for those who practice high.

 

[analogdesign]

Large amounts of law graduates are not securing jobs as lawyers. This sounds exactly like self-regulation to me - keep the amount of those able to practice low, keep the salaries for those who practice high.

That's not how labor markets work. In fact, by flooding the market they lower salaries. There is some inertia involved but there is evidence the compensation of experienced attorneys is declining.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/04/average-income-of-experienced-attorneys.html

 

[Locrian]

Agreed. So having a barrier to entry isn't enough to make a career attractive. Ensure that it's high enough to keep enough people out, but low enough that you can still scale it.

Edit: The above should be read with a touch of cynicism and/or contempt, as I think barriers of entry that exist only to reduce supply are bad for society.

 

[Shaun_W]

That's not how labor markets work. In fact, by flooding the market they lower salaries. There is some inertia involved but there is evidence the compensation of experienced attorneys is declining.

http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/04/average-income-of-experienced-attorneys.html

Are you reading my posts correctly? Where am I suggesting "flooding" the labour market with particular professions?

 

[analogdesign]

Are you reading my posts correctly? Where am I suggesting "flooding" the labour market with particular professions?

Well you clearly imply that you believe increased unemployment of new grads somehow protects the high salaries of currently employed lawyers. Let's see if I read your posts correctly.

1. You make the following post suggesting that the law profession that self-regulates the number of people it recruits:

Anything that self-regulates the amount of people it recruits to keep the supply low in order to keep wages high, like medicine, law and accountancy. If you can get in, it seems like you're guaranteed at least a comfortable living.

This seems to me to indicate that you believe that law is a good field for young people to enter (the point of this thread is to make suggestions for good fields for young people to enter). You directly state that law is self-regulated to keep the supply low.

2. I made a post with a link indicating increased unemployment in the legal profession and its subsequent effect on salaries. This directly contradicts your unsupported assertion that the legal profession is self-regulating the number of people it recruits to keep supply low. If supply were low, there would be decreased unemployment, not increased (this is the definition of labor supply). The increased unemployment and decreasing salaries are emblematic of a "flooded" labor market.

3. You then make the following post:

Large amounts of law graduates are not securing jobs as lawyers. This sounds exactly like self-regulation to me - keep the amount of those able to practice low, keep the salaries for those who practice high.

The link I posted shows not only reduced employment for new law grads but also reduced salaries for those who do get work. Your post in response indicates to me you think that increased unemployment among qualified attorneys will not impact the salaries paid to currently employed lawyers. In fact you make an unsupported assertion that high unemployment for lawyers somehow "keep the salaries for those who practice high".

4. In response, I post that "that is not how labor markets work". When there is a large supply of qualified workers, salaries decline across the board. What incentive does a large law firm have of paying top dollar to all of its attorneys when fully qualified attorneys can be had at reduced cost? Why don't clerks at The Gap make $100/hour? Because there are a large number of qualified applicants willing to work at reduced wages. The reduced salaries of new law grads indicates law grads are not different and are also accepting reduced compensation in order to obtain employment. While there is inertia of course (wages are sticky) when salaries decline at the bottom this works its way up. This is Econ 101.

Now, an increase of qualified attorneys without employment is most certainly flooding the labor market. Your post seems to indicate that you think that this increase of qualified attorneys without employment protects the salary of currently employed attorneys. Since you believe I misread your comments, please clarify.

 

[Locrian]

Large amounts of law graduates are not securing jobs as lawyers. This sounds exactly like self-regulation to me - keep the amount of those able to practice low, keep the salaries for those who practice high.

The profession isn't keeping the number of lawyers able to practice low. Lots more people get a law degree and pass the bar than can find work.

If it were far harder to pass the bar then the supply would be lower and employment and salaries would be swinging the other way.

So law is not an example of a profession where barriers to entry result in high employability and high salaries among those who manage to get in.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It seems that the discussion here on this thread has shifted to arguments on whether law is an example of barriers of entry resulting in high employability and high salaries for those who do end up graduating (the answer seems to be no, largely due to a decrease in demand for legal services plus a gut of law school graduates).

Better examples would include medicine, dentistry, or pharmacy, but this is likely due to both increasing demand for medical services as well as barriers to entry.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I thought I post this to keep this thread alive. Any fresh perspectives out there?

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

In general, it never pays to study just one thing. The truly useful discoveries or inventions occur when looking at the intersection of two or more fields of interest. For example, I studied Electrical Engineering. I also learned a lot about embedded computing, assembly language, and operating systems. This became invaluable when integrating and working on early SCADA systems.

I feel that anyone who studies two or more fields has a much better chance of discovering or inventing something revolutionary, instead of those who seek discoveries in a linear, straight fashion.

 

[thecage]

I have a question to people who might know more about this: how about jobs in the optics and laser industry? This is a field where physicists could be useful, and it seems like the number of industrial applications keeps increasing.